On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fair point. However: > "Could" is the subjunctive form of "can" (R754(1)), as in "I can join > the AAA today; I could have joined the AAA yesterday." "Can" SHOULD > be taken to mean "CAN" (R2152).
Hrm. I wonder if that use of SHOULD actually does anything. Does it qualify as an explicit definition of lower-case "can", as described in R754(2)? If not, then R754(4) applies to both "can" and "could", and R754 wins precedence over R2152. > I agree that "could" *could* be reasonably read to mean what you want > it to, but it could also reasonably be read not to. We don't really > have a case of "it should have said X if that's what it meant". What > it says is the most straightforward way to express X. Er, you don't think that "CAN" is a more straightforward way to express "CAN" than "could"? -root
